The Snyder administration has repeatedly acknowledged that it falsely accused tens of thousands of Michigan workers of unemployment fraud, then garnished wages and seized tax refunds to claw back benefits jobless workers were entitled to.

So why does the state continue to treat the victims of that bureaucratic atrocity — and even some of the judges who helped expose it — like they're the problem?

The Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency (MUIA) admitted its culpability last February in a settlement ending a federal lawsuit filed by the UAW, the Sugar Law Center and seven workers erroneously auto-adjudicated by a new computer program designed to flag suspect claims.

MUIA began using the system in 2013 after state legislators authorized the agency to impose penalties of up to 400% — the toughest in the nation — on claimants who seek unemployment benefits they're not entitled to collect.

Although an audit later suggested that more than nine of every 10 claims the computer system flagged as fraudulent were actually legitimate, MUIA moved aggressively against those implicated by its faulty algorithms. In many instances, the agency suspended benefits or garnished wages before the affected claimants had been given any opportunity to contest the false allegations against them.

Imagine the uproar that would ensue if auditors established that the vast majority of unemployment claims paid by the state actually were fraudulent. No effort would be spared to secure satisfaction for the state's bilked taxpayers.

Yet the admission that Michigan perpetrated a proportionally outrageous crime against thousands of its most vulnerable citizens has triggered only muted indignation in Lansing.

Earlier this month, Free Press capital bureau chief Paul Egan reported that administrative law judges who helped expose problems with the MUIA's error-prone computer program were scolded by the supervisor who oversees their work for criticizing the agency in open court.

Now the Michigan Court of Appeals is weighing the state Attorney General's argument that state law precludes claimants whose wages were garnished after they were erroneously accused of fraud from seeking damages from the state.

This is not how a government that seeks to rekindle its credibility with the public treats citizens it has admittedly abused.

Snyder has long championed the application of rational business practices to state government. But no self-respecting corporation caught up in a scandal of its own making conducts itself the way his administration has since in this affair.

When federal regulators marshaled evidence that Volkswagen had programmed its diesel vehicles to deceive emissions testing equipment, the automaker quickly decided not to risk any further damage to its reputation by contesting the damages claimed by individual owners. Instead, VW launched a campaign to make things right and announced a buy-back initiative to compensate anyone who'd purchased a diesel vehicle.

Snyder might have taken a similarly proactive approach to his own unemployment insurance scandal. But so far he's remained aloof, waiting to see whether Attorney General Bill Schuette can blow the pesky claimants MUAI persecuted out of the water.

Schuette maintains that he's constitutionally obligated to represent any state department that is sued, marshaling whatever defenses are available to protect taxpayers from ponying up damages for whatever the department did. In MUIA's case, that means arguing that the department enjoys governmental immunity from any lawsuit or, alternatively, that a six-month statute of limitations bars most plaintiffs from pursuing their damage claims.

Ann Arbor attorney David Blanchard, who represented the UAW and other plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit, said the settlement he negotiated obliges the state to review 50,000 so-called robo-adjudications of fraud and refund benefits and penalties to claimants its review confirms were falsely accused. But it's unclear what practical recourse those claimants have if the state Court of Appeals denies their standing to pursue claims against MUIA.

If the unemployment agency is the client, its new director — or her ultimate boss, Snyder — ought to be able to tell Schuette and his subordinates to stop contesting the aggrieved claimants' standing and start negotiating a settlement.

The governor's spokesperson, Anna Heaton, cautioned me against presuming that either the governor or his department head has the authority to demand that Schuette stand down, noting that "the AG has some flexibility here where they can do things 'on behalf of the people,'" even when the agency being sued "doesn't want to proceed."

But when I asked Heaton if Snyder had asked Schuette to stop contesting the MUIA lawsuit, she demurred, citing Snyder's policy not to comment on pending litigation.

That leaves the claimants victimized by the state caught between the state's two top elected officials, neither of whom seems sure he has the authority to do the right thing.